33 replies to this topic

[OpaQue]

Recently I got a video about Tom's Hardware where the tested out P4 processors with the AMD ones. This is what I saw,

TEST GAME : Quake 3 Arena.

The game was started and the heatsink was removed from the processor. After a couple of seconds,

AMD got burnt and also screwed up the processor. But gave peak performance until it finally commited suicide.
INTEL machine got switched off.. Possible hanged! Motherboard. Performance went on decreasing until it finally went off to sleep.

So, what do you think?

[ryu6ken]

Well, I prefer the Intel reaction
At least it didn't burn up...

Seriously... which one is better (ie. performance, length of life, etc?)

[zarjay]

AMD and Intel both have their strengths and weaknesses, but if I remember correctly, AMD performs better on visual performance and real-time processing, whereas Intel performs better at allowing multiple programs to run at the same time.

[currahee]

Intel's approach is much better as it is showing temperature monitoring. It will try and prevent the frying of the motherboard... can't say too much about the AMD one though.
AMDs.. i'm not too sure on the new 64's and their architecture. I do now the Athlon's architecture though.
It has 10 superpipelines vs Intel's 20 hyper pipelines in their Pentium 4.
The advantages of having 10 pipes is that it will make the processor very efficient. When it comes to misprediciton the Athlon can flush, reload much more quicker than the Pentium 4 can because its pipelines are shorter and eaisier to fill. With this comes an inherit disadvantage- Athlons will take a long time for them to be clocked higher.
Not with the Pentium 4 though, since it has more pipelines it can be clocked really fast. You see Tom's hardware guide? They OC'd a P4 3GHz to 5GHz! can't do that with an Athlon!

[chickenside]

Hmmm... I agree I like the Intel reaction better... as long as my computer didn't fry! Plus, ok, I admit it, I'm biased because I have an Intel P4.

[currahee]

I'm really split even though AMD's perform much better and have always performed better (on the same speed basis). And you don't have to admit anything =D having a P4 doesn't usually mean you'll love it =P.
Infact I remember when the Pentium 4s came out with RDRAM... the high end Pentium III's with SDRAM performed much better

[jackson_cn]

i agree intel is better than AMD
so in intel is usual used in the company most.

[dissipate]

the Intel reaction is much much better than AMD's. i mean imagine yourself driving a daihatsu at 200kmph. it'd be shocking if the car reacted to being pushed so hard by exploding or catching fire lol.

[deivid]

This video is cleary wrong (I don't know how much intel paid for that ), because every who know and has AMD Athlon and good motherboard, goes to bios setup, hardware... shutdown if the temperature goes to x degree, I've a athlon xp 2800+ and Motherboard Asus A7V8X, and I did the test, I remove heatsink from the processor. After a couple of seconds, the system shutdown instantly, and the processor still working....

[bx93]

Every time when I thinking about the processors, I could not forget that I have three Intel processor (PII 100, PII 133, PIII 300A) put inside my box instead of my computer.

When we buy a software, always we can get the update with or without little fee, but why we spent so much money on the update of processors. Is the cost of processor reasonable for us? Could we pay the new processor in the update model?

[currahee]

Well then again its eaisier to make software than hardware right? Processors are etched using ultraviolet light and are manufactured in highly controlled rooms where the temperature must be perfect and the air must be as clean as possible (no dust).

[chronogamer28]

Intel is better at cooling the processor, I'll give you that. But AMD's quality of processors is better, especially their 64-bit processors. AMD just REALLY needs to work on their cooling solutions and heatsinks.

[bx93]

Well then again its eaisier to make software than hardware right? Processors are etched using ultraviolet light and are manufactured in highly controlled rooms where the temperature must be perfect and the air must be as clean as possible (no dust).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi currahee, I think it's really difficult to say which is easier to make, software or hardware. Currently, the More rule still be true in hardware making, but why it is not true in software making.

Considering the cost of processors and software:
Though processors can only be made by few companies. But they master the technology and can make the processors in large scale, this will reduce the TCO for each chip. But normally a software is developed for one enterprise or for only one purpose, this make the TCO high.

Do you think so?

[lxcid]

i'm with intel becuz at least when ur heatsink get faulty ur proccessor don't... if u are going for speed... den go for amd... nowadays cooling devices for proccessor come in all kind of shapes and sizes... water cooling... air-con... bulky metal pieces... etc etc... i not a hardware expert but i think these can really cool the proccessor by a huge lot... base on their looks

[microdude431]

im going with AMD because its faster...

[Tonice112322004]

Recently I got a video about Tom's Hardware where the tested out P4 processors with the AMD ones. This is what I saw,

TEST GAME : Quake 3 Arena.

The game was started and the heatsink was removed from the processor. After a couple of seconds,

AMD got burnt and also screwed up the processor. But gave peak performance until it finally commited suicide.
INTEL machine got switched off.. Possible hanged! Motherboard. Performance went on decreasing until it finally went off to sleep.

So, what do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I think (and this has been proven) AMD is better then Intel, in everything except for mulitimedia creation, editing, and producing...

So, what does this mean, AMD, is a better processor if you do everything, except editing and produceing video, and sound...

That your better off sticking with Intel...

[chronogamer28]

Again, price for power. AMD's chips you pay a HUGE amount of money towards them, but since Intel mass produces them, they can sell their chips for a much lower price.

[pedro]

Recently I got a video about Tom's Hardware where the tested out P4 processors with the AMD ones. This is what I saw,

TEST GAME : Quake 3 Arena.

The game was started and the heatsink was removed from the processor. After a couple of seconds,

AMD got burnt and also screwed up the processor. But gave peak performance until it finally commited suicide.
INTEL machine got switched off.. Possible hanged! Motherboard. Performance went on decreasing until it finally went off to sleep.

So, what do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Microsoft's Internet Explorer is taking painful punches from competition it's never before bothered to acknowledge as competition, and now Intel, having abandoned its quest for speed, has Advanced Micro Devices breathing down its neck.


"The Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Athlon 64 4000+ will take over the top of AMD's performance lineup,"says the IDG News Service. "The Athlon 64 FX product line is for the most demanding PC users and applications, while the Athlon 64 is viewed as a more mainstream chip for the consumer and business desktop market.


At 2.6 GHz, the 64 FX-55 matches Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor, says IDG, going on:


"Both of these chips represent the highest level of desktop performance available from each company, and each charges a premium for these chips. The Athlon 64 FX-55 costs $827 in quantities of 1000 units. The 3.4-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition costs $999 in quantities of 1000 units."


Jonathan Seckler, product manager for the Athlon 64 line, is quoted as saying AMD will be able to boost the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX processors beyond 2.6 GHzt and stay within the maximum thermal rating of 104 watts, "up from the maximum rating of 89 watts attached to the 3800+ processor".


Seckler says that'll be part of the company's strategy to increase performance until it's ready to release its first dual-core processors, "which analysts believe will run slower than single-core processors. AMD and Intel both plan to release dual-core chips in 2005," adds the IDG report.

[lhunath]

Wow pedro, either you've suddenly upped your grammar and spelling skills and gained an increadible amount of intelligence,
or you copy pasted that.